I've been doing some study on the Old Testament recently in various areas (trying to brush up on my "history of salvation", and also reading up on Biblical archaeology, which is quickly becoming one of my favourite topics.)
Without wanting to sound irreverent, one of the things that I cannot get away from when it comes to the Old Testament, is how carnal and (relatively speaking) unenlightened much of it's content (or perhaps I should say, it's personalities) come across, even in the case of the "better ones" (such as various Patriarchs, Kings, or even at times Prophets.)
The world which the Old Testament describes is a very dark, harsh place. People fought tooth and nail over precious resources. We often forget that many of the convieniences and social institutions we take for granted here in the west, not only do not exist in such robust forms in much of the world at the present time, but did not exist anywhere up until quite recently - and this was even more so some three thousand years ago...a time when the world was still quite under populated and untamed.
I guess then, keeping this in mind, I shouldn't be so quick to judge the harsh behaviour of many Biblical figures. We often point fingers at ancient man, since his warfare was typically "complete" (killing off the enemy in total, or at least all of the menfolk and carrying off the women and children as servants). Yet in a dark, pragmatic way, it's hard to say what their other options would be - there were no prisons, no p.o.w. camps, no "social safety net", etc. Just barely gaining victory over an enemy was a bloody enough task - it would seem like foolishness, to undermine your victory by allowing a humiliated populace to remain in strength, to only over throw you later on.
Of course, the Holy Gospel supercedes all such naturalistic considerations. It is really "death" to such a fleshly, fearful way of thinking. "I have overcome the world" the Saviour said...that is our point of reference.
But God knows our weakness, our frailty. I think looking at the state of the world, realistically speaking mankind had to reach a certain point (in terms of his circumstances, and perhaps even in terms of his intellectual and cultural development) of development before the Gospel could be widely diffused, and the means of salvation adequately taken hold of. Otherwise, it may have fallen on even more deaf ears?
This is perhaps precisely why St.James' says that it is useless to say "God bless you" have a nice day, etc. to the poor. If you want them to hear the good word, then you must do your best to put some clothes on their back and some food in their stomachs. This is not "buying" their conversion - it's simply helping someone hear through weakness.
The Old Law was obviously leading basically barbaric, paganistic/ignorant people from darkness, towards hope. Just as much as it leads towards something, it is also leading away from something else. Hence, why so much of the Mosaic ritual differs very little, exoterically, from the rites of the Egyptians, Canaanites, and other personalities of the Levant. Yet it is where they differ, that the really important things are realized (ex. Ark of the Covenant is substantially the same as similar shrines in the ancient world, but different because it had no image of the Lord "YHWH" upon it, but rather left the space between the adoring Cherubim empty.) Instead of sacrifice as "food of the gods" (the pagans literally believed they were feeding their gods and God with their offerings), they become signs of surrender of one's goods, signs of gratitude, and signs of penitence (not to mention prototypes of redemption.) This is why you can have the "seeming" contradiction, of a sacrificial cult on one hand, but on the other hand God saying He really doesn't want the offerings at all, but wants repentence and humility - metanoia....because all of these things are transitionary, pedagogues, not an end in themselves.
It is precisely because they've taken what was transitionary and made it an end in itself, though in different ways, that the Jews and the Muslims are the cause of so much strife in the world (in both different and similar ways.) For them, God really is concerned about shedding blood to be appeased, scrupelous for revenge, passionate and even hateful (like the gods of the nations, which is often how the Israelites perceived their Lord, with minds of flesh), concerned with various washings, and actually does perceive some of his creations to be "unclean" and others "clean" for reasons apart from moral content or character.
They still think in these terms, hence the mischief. Perhaps this is where you find the failings of Christians themselves - when they also adopt (to lesser degrees usually) these same patterns of thought.
Seraphim
Yet, for all the ruthlessness that they sometimes used (e.g., King David or King Josiah), they are still considered examples of holy and even meek saints who are worthy of emulation. I'll read what you said again tonight and hopefully give more coherent thoughts tomorrow